Tricks Are for Kids

Conservatives have long criticized the lingering effects of the 1960s, and not without reason. The legacy of the “Love Generation” — or, as renamed by some disaffected ex-members, the “Destructive Generation” — is decidedly ambiguous. Not unlike Woodstock itself — “three days of peace and music” which turned Yasgur’s farm into a 600-acre latrine — the era’s idealistic youth, having rocked the world with some positive transformations (particularly in civil rights), left a cultural morass for future generations to clean up. Among the era’s gifts to posterity is the continued popularity of the in-your-face tactics that Saul Alinsky promoted in his cult classic Rules for Radicals, which begins with an “acknowledgment” giving props to “the very first radical… Lucifer.”

When purported revelations emerged during the 2008 campaign which were held to show that Barack Obama was in some way influenced by the Chicago organizer (and which were somewhat verified, oddly, by Alinsky’s son), opponents of The One fell over themselves to denounceRules for Radicals.

But a curious thing happened along the way of exposing the alleged Alinsky-like tactics of the modern Left: Some conservatives became Alinskyites themselves.

Case in point: the recent arrest of James O’Keefe, who shot to fame last September after he and a female undergrad, Hannah Giles, dressed as a pimp and prostitute to secretly videotape ACORN employees who seemed eager to aid their purported illegal activities. As the 25-year-old self-described “investigative journalist” began to make national news (in stories featuring photos and video of the barely legal Giles in her “hooker” garb), he boasted to the New York Post that he was using Alinsky’s tactics against the Left to beat them at their own game. When posting his ACORN videos on the Big Government blog, he oftenpointedout which of Alinsky’s rules he used to make the clips.

The future of conservative activism?

O’Keefe’s contention that his adaptation of radical tactics was “the future of activism” found an approving audience among numerous conservatives and libertarians. A typical reaction was that of Cato Institute Senior Fellow Richard Rahn, writing in the Washington Times: “We can hope that Ms. Giles and Mr. O’Keefe will serve as role models for millions of other young Americans who see that the present generation in Washington is stealing their financial future and liberty.”

Even Alinsky’s biographer, Sanford Horwitt, expressed admiration, telling an interviewer that an earlier O’Keefe YouTube prank — in which he complained to a credulous Rutgers University official that the Lucky Charms cereal served at the school was offensive to Irish-Americans — was “pretty creative.” Adding, “I give him points on humor and having some balls.”

If O’Keefe means to imply some kind of common ground between Chestertonian and Alinsky-style tactics, he needs a healthy reality check. Chesterton was not a progressive, much less radical, but a Catholic with an intensely Christian vision. His writings and novels attack just the kind of anarchy, relativism and subversion Alinsky embraced.

O’Keefe’s follow-up act has not been nearly as successful. On January 26, he and three male associates were arrested for allegedly plotting to tamper with the telephone system of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office. All four were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. Since his arrest, O’Keefe has issued a statement saying, “the sole intent of our investigation was to determine whether or not Senator Landrieu” — accused of selling her vote for Obamacare — “was purposely trying to avoid constituents who were calling to register their views to her as their Senator.”
The mainstream media — already hostile toward the young upstart for scooping them on ACORN — misreported the story, falsely reporting the accused were charged with wiretapping, and both O’Keefe and his supporters have justifiably criticized liberal journalists for their bias. Still, upon reflection, his much-heralded exposé of ACORN should have set off warning bells for his conservative supporters. Was it really necessary to have an undergrad disguised as a scantily clad prostitute to expose the organization? Might this lurid sexual angle be a reason for the story’s popularity? And did not his helping a young woman exploit herself on national television belie his supposed concern that ACORN might be enabling the exploitation of real-life prostitutes? Or was he simply following Alinsky’s third rule of ethics—that “in war the end justifies almost any means”?

O’Keefe needs a reality check

In fairness to O’Keefe, he does not describe himself as a conservative, but rather, a “progressive radical.” At the same time, he calls G.K. Chesterton his “intellectual backbone.” In an interview for the American Chesterton Society’s podcast, he depicted himself as a modern-day heir to the conservative icon’s intellectual legacy: “It very well [might] be the case that if Chesterton was alive today, he’d be doing YouTube videos, or he’d be pranking people with camcorders.”

If this is meant to imply some kind of common ground between Chestertonian and Alinsky-style tactics, O’Keefe needs a healthy reality check. Chesterton was not a progressive, much less radical, but a Catholic with an intensely Christian vision. His writings and novels attack just the kind of anarchy, relativism and subversion Alinsky embraced. Whereas Alinsky promoted rumormongering and, in the words of Time magazine, “something that comes very close to blackmail,” Chesterton followed St. Paul’s dictum that we cannot do evil that good may come. Alinsky believed in the politics of personal destruction (“pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it“). Chesterton embraced all people, however misguided, and tried to lead them to God, with good will and reason. Chesterton served Christ. Alinsky — who boasted he would one day organize hell — served, well, Lucifer.

For Chesterton, and the Church he so loved, the beginning of wisdom and maturity is the recognition of what actually protects society and effects positive social change. It is not protest, or clever politicking, or subterfuge, but a defense and promotion of the family. Without the family, he wrote, “we are helpless before the State.” More than a half-century later, Pope John Paul II would similarly write that the family is “the place of origin and the most effective means for humanizing and personalizing society.”

Of all people, conservatives — who so mocked “The One” during the 2008 campaign — should be extremely wary of a false messianism, which attempts to use politics as a short cut towards societal changes that can only truly be realized by changed attitudes and behaviors. Our present pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, warned of this very error: “Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.”

A more fruitful path

For Chesterton, and the Church he so loved, the beginning of wisdom and maturity is the recognition of what actually protects society and effects positive social change. It is not protest, or clever politicking, or subterfuge, but a defense and promotion of the family… For those seeking a more fruitful path of activism, a higher and nobler form is one that emphasizes prayer, fasting, reparation and charity.

If the goal of O’Keefe, who left off his MBA studies at Fordham University last year to pursue undercover video work full-time, is truly to be a leader in the “future of activism,” he would do well to heed John Paul’s additional assertion that “the future of the world and of the Church passes through the family.” True, the quiet martyrdom of being a self-sacrificing son, brother, and perhaps someday a husband and father, may never return him to fame. But if he is sincere about wanting to “change hearts and minds“, he is far more likely to do so on a wide and lasting scale by finishing his graduate degree and living virtuously in the real world, than by trying to extend his 15 minutes of recognition as an Internet insurrectionist.

For those seeking a more fruitful path of activism, a higher and nobler form is one that emphasizes prayer, fasting, reparation and charity, such as what the 40 Days for Life campaign does for the unborn. The grassroots organization’s powerful and persistent witness has brought about extraordinary results, including the conversion of Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson, who was transformed from an abortion-rights ideologue to a passionate pro-lifer.

“The human race,” Chesterton observed, “has been playing at children’s games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up.” Where that nuisance is concerned, to paraphase Alinsky’s contemporary Eldridge Cleaver, one is either part of the problem or part of the solution. O’Keefe’s arrest — and the misdirected activism that spawned it — is a timely reminder that, today, a full half century after the dawn of the Sixties, the most radical, countercultural work of activism is to become mature adults. Mighty oaks may yet from little ACORN pranksters grow.

William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican and other publications.

I don’t think it’s that any of us have missed her point, it’s that we disagree that it makes any sense — biblically or otherwise.

Dawn seems to be implying some kind of equivalency between what ACORN was obviously up to, and what the two “pranksters” did to expose it. “Using their same Alinsky tactics against them”. You’d almost think they MURDERED someone so they could expose other murderers.

I guess it leaves many of us wondering just what might really be motivating such an article. Perhaps some clarification regarding Dawn’s opinion of ACORN, THEIR tactics, and “community organizing” or “social justice” in general.

Dawn Eden

Beautifully stated, Matt. That is indeed the point that many seem to be missing. Thank you.

Matt Biddick

Good job, Dawn and William. You ought to see what you set off over at Townhall.com and Giles’ dad’s column. Whew! I think I get your point (the one that many seem to be missing). Our personal goal should be, and forever will be, the total conversion of our own hearts. When we allow ourselves to practice minute deceptive acts we are taking tiny steps backwards. It does seem that our broken world requires us to fight “fire with fire” so as to achieve some greater good, yet . . . When we can all totally and completely convert our hearts and minds then perhaps most of our worlds’ problems will diminish to very manageable proportions. At least those problems that involve people. May God continue to bless your work.

I little deceptive on the author’s part here ….. she makes it sound like the peaceful and passive “40 days for life” was solely responsible for Abby Johnson’s “conversion”. I’m sure they played a valuable support role, and it may not even have happened if not for the foundation they laid, but what was really key was Abby witnessing up close and personal the horror and violence of abortion on the ultra-sound screen. Even the article Dawn links to plays this aspect down, clawing for full credit for the conversion for several paragraphs. They finally mention that the ultra-sound was her “breaking point”.

The country at large already had a foundation for distrusting and suspecting ACORN, but it needed that up close and personal moment to really drive it home.

This is what James and Hannah provided.

I don’t think the authors here fully realize the true nature of the agenda of these folks, and the window they currently have for achieving it. I don’t think they realize that it’s really now or never, for us, mainly, but also for them, although they’ll change and morph and keep their wheels grinding. It’s kind of like Jack Bauer time.

I always cheer for Jack, just like I’m sure do millions of perfectly good and righteous Christians.

J Doen

Dawn Eden sounds like a Progressive “Christian” to me. I know the type. That whole “Earthly Utopia” thing is a familiar theme. Weak-minded ninnies who have no understanding of their religion OR politics fall for the ProgLib line every time. Their false piety sickens me. People like Dawn are the true “useful idiots” in the world. When the blind lead the blind, all fall in the ditch.

Should Christians Use Saul Alinsky‚Äôs Tactics in Exposing Corruption?by Doug Giles
A Christian pundit, Dawn Eden, thinks my daughter Hannah Giles and her partner James O‚ÄôKeefe should not have used Saul Alinsky‚Äôs deceptive tactics against ACORN because Saul was ‚Äúevil,‚Äù his methods sneaky, and he dedicated his book, Rules for Radicals, to Lucifer.

In addition, Eden took a swipe at Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood‚Äôs main pain in the butt, for being deceptive in her undercover vids which exposed Planned Parenthood‚Äôs illegal activity. Oh, and I almost forgot: Dawn also busted on Hannah for being un-Christlike for wearing a miniskirt and dressing like a hooker. Sounds a little catty to me‚Äîand a wee bit like Dana Carvey‚Äôs Church Lady‚Äîbut I digress.

First off, Ms. Eden, if you ever drum up the nerve to expose a scandalous multimillion dollar Obama-backed, taxpayer-funded organization for doing illegal crap and then undergo death threats (versus sitting on the sidelines and simply critiquing those who have the cojones to do so) you will find that the lawbreakers are rather reticent in telling journalists, who are intent on exposing and destroying their world, exactly how they‚Äôre breaking the law. Yeah, I know. It‚Äôs weird, eh?

You‚Äôd think that nefarious organizations would just spill their guts, throw up their hands, give up their hard drives, refrain from dumping tens of thousands of documents in a dumpster, and just cooperate to the fullest extent with the FBI and the DOJ, but alas, they don‚Äôt because they‚Äôre criminals, and criminals, generally speaking, aren‚Äôt known for truthfulness, contrition and full disclosure with cops.

Therefore, most of the time when journalists, Christian or not, want to get the 411 on a reprehensible group, they usually have to fly under the radar, you know, by being misleading, going stealth, acting like serpents, slithering in and getting the apple in front of the culprit and seeing if they‚Äôll take the bait. Deception is a given in the truth seeker‚Äôs toolbox when it comes to dealing with slippery critters who won‚Äôt easily spill the beans. It‚Äôs called hunting. Haven‚Äôt you ever watched a Jason Bourne movie, seen Barney Fife in action, or read Joshua or Judges? Geez, Dawn. Come to speed, why don‚Äôt cha?

For frail Dawn, the deceptive tactics Giles, O‚ÄôKeefe and Rose employed in exposing crappy cabals like ACORN and Planned Parenthood present a pious conundrum because she sees deceit, in all forms, as evil; according to her read of the Bible, sweet Jesus would never give the thumbs-up to a believer to participate in that kind of devilish activity.

No, for Dawn, we must pray, be more ‚Äúmature,‚Äù take the high road, wait a million years, come through the front door with a press pass around our neck, and tell the twisted that the USA and Jesus would really appreciate it if ACORN and Planned Parenthood would confess their sins, close down their operations, and become a Ben & Jerry‚Äôs.

Here‚Äôs my take on whether or not Jesus and the Bible are cool with deceit for righteous purposes. First off, when I‚Äôm talking about Jesus, I‚Äôm talking about the one in the Bible who methodically made a whip and beat the religious hucksters out of the temple (that‚Äôs not very Christlike, eh Dawn?), purposely picked fights with sanctimonious toads and political pukes, and instructed his disciples to be ‚Äúshrewd as serpents and innocent as doves‚Äù (Mt. 10:16). Or, as my King Doug Contra Mundus Translation interprets the original Greek text, ‚Äúbe as clever as the Devil.‚Äù Yep, good old Jesus said it‚Äôs okay to imitate the serpent in regard to cleverness; just be righteous in spirit and desired goals.

From what I know from my own serious Christian kid and O‚ÄôKeefe (as well as Rose, via several interviews with her), their motivations were pure in that they wanted to sink these two sucky organizations‚Äîorganizations, mind you, that are on tape aiding and abetting underage prostitution, home loans for multiple whorehouses, money laundering, tax fraud, millions of abortions, and not just any old abortions but abortions for underage girls (without their parents‚Äô knowledge or consent) who have been the victims of statutory rape.

The reason I believe Jesus wouldn‚Äôt give a flip about these three heroes‚Äô mad methods but would instead applaud their efforts is because the Scripture doesn‚Äôt condemn:

Rahab, a real whore, for her sleight of hand with the Canaanites
Gideon‚Äôs pretense with his small army
Abraham‚Äôs lie regarding his wife
King David‚Äôs feigned madness before King Achish.
Real life is war, sweetie pie, and I hate to burst your smug balloon, my dear Dawn, but sometimes playing dirty for noble reasons is the right thing to do.

With Eden‚Äôs edict banning deception, it follows that Christian cops couldn‚Äôt do their fabulous undercover work; Christian soldiers couldn‚Äôt wear deceptive camo or take on local dress in order to whack the Taliban; Christian CIA ops would have to wear dove and fish T-Shirts instead of their Simon Templar garb; and the amazing Christians who lied to the murderous Nazis would all be uniformly condemned for fibbing about the whereabouts of precious Jews they were hiding.

Lastly, Dawn, at the end of the day, I believe Hannah, James and Lila will get mad applause in heaven as they are here on earth for exposing ACORN and Planned Parenthood‚Äôs hellish practices. I know, as a Christian, I prefer their ways of doing things to your way of not doing them. Amen.

hannajo

Jesus did use types of deception in His earthly ministry. He posed as just an ordinary boy/man for most of his life.

Often, we need to use deception to expose evil in society and to protect the innocent from that evil. Many people lied to the Nazi’s in order to protect Jews. Today, adults pose as children on the internet in order to protect children from pedophiles.

Ms. Eden, you write, “For those seeking a more fruitful path of activism, a higher and nobler form is one that emphasizes prayer, fasting, reparation and charity,…” Do you know that O’Keefe doesn’t do these things in addition to his public actions?

Jesus does tell us we need to be cunning as serpents, and gentle as lambs.

Davymax

Found them! Finally!

I remember that when I was first on the Daily News, the great Liberal organ of the Nonconformists, I took the trouble to draw up a list of fifteen falsehoods which I found out, by my own personal knowledge, in a denunciation of Rome by Messrs. Horton and Hocking. I noted, for instance, that it was nonsense to say that the Covenanters fought for religious liberty when the Covenant denounced religious toleration; that it was false to say the Church only asked for orthodoxy and was indifferent to morality, since, if this was true of anybody, it was obviously true of the supporters of salvation by faith and not of salvation by works; that it was absurd to say that Catholics introduced a horrible sophistry of saying that a man might sometimes tell a lie, since every sane man knows he would tell a lie to save a child from Chinese torturers; that it missed the whole point, in this connection, to quote Ward’s phrase, “Make up your mind that you are justified in lying and then lie like a trooper,” for Ward’s argument was against equivocation or what people call Jesuitry. He meant, “When the child really is hiding in the cupboard and the Chinese torturers really are chasing him with red-hot pincers, then (and then only) be sure that you are right to deceive and do not hesitate to lie; but do not stoop to equivocate. Do not bother yourself to say, “The child is in a wooden house not far from here,” meaning the cupboard; but say the child is in Chiswick or Chimbora zoo, or anywhere you choose.” I find I made elaborate notes of all these arguments all that long time ago, merely for the logical pleasure of disentangling an intellectual injustice. I had no more idea of becoming a Catholic than of becoming a cannibal.
CCC CW3:89-90

I think, that, though we may do a horrid thing in a horrid situation, we must be quite certain that we actually and already are in that situation. Thus, all sane moralists admit that one may sometimes tell a lie; but no sane moralist would approve of telling a little boy to practice telling lies, in case he might one day have to tell a justifiable one. Thus, morality has often justified shooting a robber or a burglar. But it would not justify going into the village Sunday school and shooting all the little boys who looked as if they might grow up into burglars. The need may arise; but the need must have arisen. It seems to me quite clear that if you step across this limit you step off a precipice.
[GKC ILN Jan 4 1908 CW28:19]

Columcille

Come on Dawn. O’Keefe has thrown a stone and taken down a Goliath. Is it morally permissible for a lawyer to “lie” during a negotiation for the purposes of representing his client to the best of his abilities? Yes, because of the context and his duty.

Apply the same standard. Is it permissible for a journalist to misrepresent himself? Yes, in the context of undercover investigative journalism – the purpose of which is to bring to light that which is hidden. Is it permissible for a undercover detective to lie when going into a drug cartel? I think you get the picture.

The issue isn’t simply means and ends, but rather it is also professional duties.

Denis

Are espionage and undercover police work immoral? Were allied soldiers who wore German military outfits in WWII doing something immoral? How about recusant Catholics and priests who hid their worship from the authorities and used deception to evade punishment? And what about shows like “Candid Camera”? Is Alan Funt in hell now because he used deception to entertain?

I know that Father Trigilio expressed reservations about journalists and police using entrapment–but what James O’Keefe did does not qualify as entrapment. To entrap is to induce someone to commit a moral act that they would not otherwise have committed. James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, on the other hand, caught ACORN workers in the act of applying ACORN standards. In other words, that organization had already committed to this criminal behavior, and O’Keefe/Giles merely gave them the opportunity to apply an ACORN-approved policy. Moreover, they were not really cooperating in an evil act because O’Keefe and Giles did not really intend to open up an underage brothel. If that had been their intention, then the cooperation with evil charge would have been warranted.

Craig

Alinsky was a nonbeliever for whom Lucifer was a mythic type along the lines of Prometheus–which is abundantly clear to any who have actually read his book. (Does anyone really believe he was a Satanist? Please.)

He was, among other things, an employee of the Church in Chicago for years, organizing largely Catholic poor neighborhoods. The man who was to become Pope Paul VI brought him over to Italy for a while to help keep the reds from taking over the unions. He was also a lifelong friend of Jacques Maritain, and the University of Notre Dame Press published a collection of their correspondence a few years back.

I am continually surprised by people’s willingness to mount this silly Alinsky hobby horse, which has nothing to do with the man himself and everything to do with potential damage it could do to the current president. If this doesn’t hurt Obama (and it’s looking like it won’t) everyone will suddenly move on and stop caring about Alinsky again–just like they did with Bill Ayers.

Do check out the Alinsky/Maritain correspondence, though. A good read.

Jo

Excellent piece, and couldn’t agree more.

Keith Rickert Jr

I don’t think there is a moral equivalence between Alinsky and O’Keefe. The former attempts to subvert truth to an ideological agenda, while the latter is simply trying to free the truth. If tricks (undercover work, sting operations, etc.) are for kids, what does this say about law enforcement? I agree that virtuous family living is the backbone of society, but I don’t think this precludes activism. After all, the LORD told us to be both as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves.

ben wetmore

While Dave is getting the citations, Dawn, how about you respond in the meantime?

Dawn Eden

Thanks to everyone who’s contributed to the discussion. Susan, William and I do not mention Lila Rose in the article, although I was asked about her for a subsequent column by Matt C. Abbott, and have some additional comments that he is set to publish shortly.

David, you write,

“There are many examples of the Saints and Jesus himself tricking people so as to stay out of trouble or to stay alive.”

“Tricking” in self-defense is not the same as deceptions undertaken to expose other deceptions. In any case, I do know an example from the saints, but when did Our Lord do such a thing? Making his way through a crowd without getting stoned is not “tricking”–it’s receiving the benefits of His Father’s protection. It’s not like He put on a fur coat and sunglasses or something.

And you write:

“Chesterton himself gives the example that if you‚Äôre hiding someone in your house who is unjustly being sought after, you not only have the moral option of lying, but you are morally obliged to lie and tell them that the guy is on the other side of the world if they‚Äôll believe you.”

This hypothetical example is much-argued by philosophers–but where did Chesterton say such a thing? Citations, please.

David

Are you kidding me? Of course prayer and fasting are good things, but is this the only way to God? Look at the Saints. Are all of them paradigms of quiet prayer and fasting, or do some protest, do some go to jail? Aren’t some burned at the stake? And why? Because they desired truth. There are many examples of the Saints and Jesus himself tricking people so as to stay out of trouble or to stay alive. Do we say that this is lying? Of course not. Chesterton himself gives the example that if you’re hiding someone in your house who is unjustly being sought after, you not only have the moral option of lying, but you are morally obliged to lie and tell them that the guy is on the other side of the world if they’ll believe you. Morality has to do with intent. Does James sin by saying he’s a telephone repairman in order to ask some questions and to reach the truth? I don’t think so. Read the Catechism. You must lead someone into error by deliberate statement of an untruth. No one is being led into error. Especially with the Acron videos. In fact they are being led into a moral position of revealing the truth and as James always says, “veritas vos liberabit”

Susan

O’Keefe and Rose have in fact worked together in the past, and actually, the persona needed at the PP clinic was necessarily milder than that required to expose ACORN, because of the nature of each enterprise. Think about it again, the approach in each case was fitted to the nature of its target organization.

Yes, O’Keefe may be guilty of some naivete in the phone scam, and some hamming it up with ACORN pimpery, and perhaps went too far in brandishing Alinsky (I haven’t seen those quotes). But he also clearly was out to bravely fight the evil that we all have seen, and deserves more support from conservatives. It takes all levels of activism to defeat the insidious Marxist beast, just as it took both Reagan and JPII to defeat the Soviet Union. O’Keefe’s humor has also helped to buoy the spirits of conservatives, so please let’s not we in our armchairs shoot him down so easily. I hope more young people will sacrifice themselves so generously.

Jason Miller

ACORN has been caught in lies and fraud over and over again. Whether or not they do anything for the poor, the ends does not justify the means. Christ neither lied nor deceived. Alinksy is on the side of Lucifer – he said so himself. Don’t need to say more than that. So Mr. Pacitti, your assertions mean nothing.

Sean

As the Church defines the matter, social justice is rendering everyone in society his due, whether honor and obedience of lawful superiors, or jail time for criminals. Social justice is not taking from someone else what one thinks he’s entitled to, like the Alinksy-inspired crew professes.
It’s reasonable to conclude that Acorn is capable of supporting child prostitution, so I’d like to see the organization investigated for that. Just as Roman Polanski’s directorial talents don’t entitle him to special treatment in the courts, Acorn’s help for the poor doesn’t give it a free pass for its misconduct.
Let O’Keefe stand trial, and if convicted of a crime, let him go to jail.
And let the mainstream press recognize it has been derelict of duty in performing due diligence on its favored political figures and organizations and was consequently scooped on a legitimate story by a pair of amateur college kids. Either do your job of keeping the democratic populace informed of government activities, or be replaced by someone else to take up the slack created by your negligence.

george pacitti

O’Keefe is a fraud and an exhibitionist. Alinsky, and for that matter ACORN, has done more for poor and working class Catholics and others than any conservative activist could ever dream of doing.